Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!


Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
User Review A review of the site and any replies from other users.

Visit The Sandfly

The Sandfly (0)

TheMoreYouKnow (4) 04-26-14  07:36pm
Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (0), NO (0)
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: Has a few decent photo sets of original content.
Cons: Majority of the siteís content is ripped from other sites (the low res free sample content versions), such as beachhunters, beachvoy, joypicz as well as others for sure.

In terms of site format, itís pretty horrible. It doesnít have optional zip files for pics, nor does it even provide a forward/backward buttons to navigate within its pages!

Regarding its dismal limited in quantity of original content, pic and vid quality ranges from decent to awfully tiny. Lastly videos are only available to stream on siteÖ WTF!!!

Also original content videos is peppered with large, cheesy unnecessary captions and comments, which is a superb reflection of the overall quality and character of the website.
Bottom Line: It would appear the majority of the site's content consists of random low res pics and vids that were farmed from other sites (legitimately? who's to say). In short, stay clear from this site; itís simply not worth the money.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (7)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date


CarlitoB (2)
Why go to all the bother of signing up here just to post a sabotage review? If you're not going to retract it...

Oh well, if you're prepared to go to all the trouble of super-trolling us (we have your emails demanding 'navigation buttons between pics' wtf?) then I'll set about bursting your bubble of hate. Addressing your cons, paragraph by paragraph:

Wrong on first count. It only takes the casual observer a few seconds to relaise WE are the primary hub for exclusive ORIGINAL content regards the beach vids you refer to - we PAY the voyeurs to supply us - Sandfly, Itsmee, etc, etc and have done for 3 YEARS.
Voyeurs sell their material to us. If they hock it around elsewhere, that's up to them to make a living. WE carry a huge variety from a number of different guys. WE present stuff that no-one else on the web has.

That content is served out at 720x576 pix ration - hardly small and double the size of mainstream dinosaur sites.

Other vid content onsite is served out at 480x384 and 640x480 respectively. Again, average size and above. 'awfully tiny' ??? Getthefuckoutofhere.

Pics - from hi-res current submitted amateur stuff to Retro section lo-res with some b&w. Yes - it may surprise you to know they didn't have hi-res cameras in the 1950s and earlier. We don't photoshop anything to upscale or prettify - we are an AMATUER site, which means honest original shots, presented warts and all (although we'd rather not see warts ;))

'Also original content videos is peppered with large, cheesy unnecessary captions and comments,' - did you get tired of trolling here?

Just a plain lie. You blew your cover there.
No cheesy captions on our content - occasional titles only then on with the show.

You also threw in a reply to another review about downloading videos - including a plug for some pro program (you on commission?) Again, bullshit. Many of our members use torch browser (as an example of a number of free programs) to download vid content. Nobody needs to pay for pro.

By serving out video at quality sizes and letting members make their own choices about downloading software, we save on bandwidth costs - this saving is then passed to our customers in the form of low-cost long-term memberships.

Thankfully, many people seem to realise this and are happy to accept the compromise for the sake of their wallets.

Our site is growing, our huge amateur archive growing, our membership growing. theSandfly 2.0 is coming later this year which will ensure functionality across ALL platforms from desktop to mobile.

People like what we give them; honest amateur porn, in spades, with some exclusive greatness and no bull.

04-28-14  06:00pm

Reply To Message


TheMoreYouKnow (4) REPLY TO #1 - CarlitoB :

A most highly entertaining response. Thank you, Carlito. First, I made no reference toward the retro shots, comments of low resolution images and videos were all aimed at your farmed 3rd party random free images and vids... My guess from flickr.com and xvideos.com. Second, No cheesy in video commentary or captions? Two words..."Santa's Vacation (2014-EP4)." Please rebuttal...

BTW after reading your response, along with "predominate" farmed content, going through an HTML course...Next to put on the list... try using "spell check!" And yes, your site actually has the farmed low-res images free pictures from other sites (poorly not entirely cropped out site logos even at times, quite hilarious actually, which brings to question... If you had their permission to use their images and videos, why don't you have their high resolution full-pay versions? Hmmm... Nice try Carlito. You gave me a good laugh.

05-06-14  01:05am

Reply To Message


CarlitoB (2)
REPLY TO #2 - TheMoreYouKnow :

I am not sure whether to attempt dialogue with you or slap you down as another bitter troll. You seem too educated to troll, but you never know.

I explained previously our video serving ratios. I explained previously our exclusivity of many of our videos.

I explained WE have been here for 3 years; many of OUR exclusive vids pop up on other sites. This is the adult internet, my friend - because you see similar videos on different sites does not mean anyone is plagarising or copying. Certainly not framing - it is easily spotted.

More like the originators of the vids are trying to make a few bucks by hocking them around; we find it difficult to tie producers down to just us - the Sandfly and a couple of others being very much the exception nowadays. But we manage to, and our users very much appreciate the originality of that facet of our content. You maybe do not understand how rare a thing that is. Deal with it

I do not need spellchecker to answer trolls, however you may use it to understand the term 'pedant' - a 1.5 second comical caption in a 15 minute video placed by the producer of the video does not constitute in any way the validity of your prior claims.

Our images - numbering in millions - range from very hi-res to low-res dependent on age, camera-type, etc, etc. We don't publish shots that have been elsewhere if we can avoid it - staff have to sift through thousands and reject a fair percentage. Errors are down to the human eye, nothing sisnister.
Complaining to us about the quality of pics someone sends in is like complaining the Mona Lisa is too small for your liking - take it up with the artist, not the museum. Perhaps you'd like to advise some gents to find better-quality wives/gfs while you're at it? Je-sus.

Finally, I hope your enormous self-conceit may allow you to appreciate business accumen. I will not call you out as another shallow fool because I think you do have some comprehension of the adult internet business, however you do need to put the brakes on and think before you condemn:

We have reasons for serving out videos at the resolutions we do - which are as standard as any major sites, and in the case of exclusive content (720x576), above most - and for letting our users chose their own method of downloading.

These reasons are purely business - doing so means we save greatly on bandwidth costs; THE crippling expense of any web business involved in vid streaming/download.

Efficiency of bandwidth costs we can PASS ON the saving to our users through long-term, low-cost memberships.

THAT is why we do not charge rip-off $30 per-month prices. THAT is why we have a massive archive and happy, recurring customer base.

Perhaps you may have given that some deeper thought before attempting to bury us. Our business model stands strong against anything else on the web and is about to widen with the advent of theSandfly 2.0 this fall when new interfaces and blanket mobile compatibility are introduced.

05-06-14  10:25am

Reply To Message


TheMoreYouKnow (4) REPLY TO #3 - CarlitoB :

My comments are well warranted and I happily welcome more quality conscientious customers, like myself, visit your site and pay tribute of their 5 cents on pornusers. The site has some original content and I do believe it's getting bigger by the month for sure, just not enough to substantiate a decent site. Still if you look at as a whole, it consists of mostly random porn pics. And "Serial Killers"... really? The only picture set category of one scene and it's only available in a streaming video slide show? Shouldn't be so chintzy with the jpgs, man... Your site is inexpensive than most, a good thing too, because it's predominately comprised of 3rd party content that could easily be grabbed from free sites...end of story.
05-06-14  03:55pm

Reply To Message


TheMoreYouKnow (4) REPLY TO #4 - TheMoreYouKnow :

Latest news update on site, some reiteration passed on from Carlito's last comments, just passing forward to prospective users.

Project Mayhem: Sandfly 2.0

"The Plan....
Over the next few months theSandfly will be undergoing major restructuring - A slicker interface, more comprehensive navigation options to cover our expanding sections, and and upgrade of video files and players.
All this work will take place in the background. There will be NO disruption to your normal service. There will be NO increase in pricing. There will be only more and more exciting content added as per usual.
What This Means For YOU... The Plan...
Around October 2014 (or earlier) theSandfly.com 2.0 will be ready. The site video content will be fully compatible with ALL platforms - desktop, laptop, tablets, and MOBILE, including an implant which allows, by telekenesis, 3D projection of any video onto your woman's ass while you bang her *.
* this implant may take a few hundred years to develop, but everything else will be running by October..."
So please continue to enjoy our content, knowing that in the near future you will never be without it anywhere. ;))"

I'm not a belligerent super-troller. I just call it how I see it, and what I see here in this site's above statement is an admittance to some of its current fallbacks, but with a current initiative in place on improving itself. Hopefully it rings true...

05-07-14  01:32pm

Reply To Message


host2626 (0) Wait, so the videos are at 720x576, and it is touted as a huge step up from 640x480? I don't disagree, it would have been a revolution if we were having this conversation 15 years ago. At least it is more honest than what beachhunters do: take these low res videos, re-encode them at a higher screen size and a slightly higher bitrate and label them as "HD". But you can't violate the "Turd in, Turd Out" principle so you end up with a low definition clip at a much higher file size.

None of this is acceptable in 2014, it hasn't been for a few years already. Maybe the site should pay its contributors more so they can afford better equipment? ;) It's not like its impossible in principle to make nice HD beach voyeur videos. Check out jackassfiles.com or ilovethebeach.com.

05-22-14  10:05pm

Reply To Message


TheMoreYouKnow (4) REPLY TO #6 - host2626 :

Yes... incredibly ridiculous... and I concur regarding ilovethebeach.com, as far as I know, they're the best out there in this genre.
06-13-14  01:55pm

Reply To Message

*Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies.

Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.


To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.

Loaded in 0.02 seconds.